I’d love to see all the candidates forced to answer whether or not they support the current level of access to contraception. I keep trying to think of ways to take any wiggle room out of the question, and I expect the fine posters here can help me refine it.

The goal: force the candidate to say he won’t in any way discourage or restrict contraception, and watch the extreme wing-nuts desert him, or force the candidate to say he supports restrictions and watch the American public realize the candidate is nuts.

“If lowering taxes results in increased revenues then would lowering taxes to zero result in infinite revenues?”

This is something I’ve been ranting about for ages. There’s a case for the Laffer curve, but it doesn’t follow that we’re always on the downslope of the curve. Going from 90% to 40% can make a difference in motivation, but do people really get excited about going to 33% from 36%?

If raising taxesthe national debt gives the government more money for social programs to improve the lives of the poorfor victory against the terrorists, why not increase the tax ratedebt to 100%$100 trillion?

“Rudi, if your plane leaves NYC and travels WSW at 400 mph, and Romney’s bus leaves Madison and travels SW at 65 mpg, who gets to pander and flip-flop in Iowa first?”

Rudi’s answer:
“Let’s see. 9 divided by 11 gives us 9/11, which when added to the 19 terrorists gives us more 9s and 1s, plus Hillary is a complete zero, which can all be rearranged to 9-11-01. So my answer is 4. Wait, my wife’s calling. Maybe she knows…”

Rudi’s answer:
“Let’s see. 9 divided by 11 gives us 9/11, which when added to the 19 terrorists gives us more 9s and 1s, plus Hillary is a complete zero, which can all be rearranged to 9-11-01. So my answer is 4. Wait, my wife’s calling. Maybe she knows…”

Mr. Giuliani, in response to hearing that Mitt Romney has a campaign advisor who would stab a person in the leg to get information on a terrorist attack your campaign state that you would, and I quote “Skull fuck a kitten to prevent a terrorist attack”. I have two questions on this:

Many of you say that the unborn of this country should have the full protection of American law. What about foreign unborn? Can we send the Mexican unborn to Guantanamo, where they will understand the language?

Many have wondered how the Egyptians managed to build their pyramids without power tools or the benefits of home schooling. Scientists say that the great Pyramid is about as old as the Earth. Do you think the Egyptians could have used trained dinosaurs to lift the big blocks into place?

This is something I’ve been ranting about for ages. There’s a case for the Laffer curve, but it doesn’t follow that we’re always on the downslope of the curve. Going from 90% to 40% can make a difference in motivation, but do people really get excited about going to 33% from 36%?

Actually the fundamental problem with the Laffer curve is the belief that a 90% tax rate will encourage people to work and earn less. That’s not true.

They’ll just try to avoid paying the tax by accepting pay in cash, or laundered through an offshore bank account.

Mayor Giuliani, unlike the rest of the candidates you have actually commanded troops in the war against terrorism; I refer to your brilliant campaign against panhandlers and squeegee men, the so-called “Spritzkrieg”. You won. Is The War Against Terror different?

TOS – in terms of tax revenue though it can have a similar effect. That’s why I’m willing to accept that there’s some validity to the idea. However once the rates get down to the 30s and people are talking about minor tweaks, it’s hard to imagine it making that much of a difference.

Then again, the last time I got in an argument with a Laffer fan, he conveniently ignored the effects of inflation so…

Actually, you can always count on National Review to ask the real questions. This article poses the question, “Why, then, does everyone fret about the burden of the uninsured, but not that of the overinsured?” Those damn irresponsible insured people going to doctors for kicks, when they should just suck up their minor aches and pains and wait for a disaster to strike them. Let’s make it harder for them to get health care!

Actually the fundamental problem with the Laffer curve is the belief that a 90% tax rate will encourage people to work and earn less. That’s not true.

It also has to be that everyone is taxed at that 90% rate. As someone pointed out at Kevin Drum’s blog, someone not earning enough to be taxed at that rate will step in and do the job to earn the income if the rich person bows out.

The example they gave was “suppose Reagan has already earned enough as an actor to be in the 90% bracket. He might just not to that next film, figuring $10k out of a $100k paycheck isn’t worth it. But someone who is only in the 40% tax bracket will just step in and take on the role”.

Again, even assuming the Laffer curve is nominally true, there are far too many nuances to taxation to make it a useful tool. Not to mention Laffer himself never articulated the numbers on the graph (and no one has convincingly since). It’s been reduced to the a more general statement, which Laffer himself did not support, that reducing taxes automatically, invariably increases revenue through increased economic activity. That’s just wishful thinking and easily disproven.

If you were on a sinking ship with Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and Edward Kennedy, and there were only three life vests between the four of you, how would you make sure the all three of of them drowned?

Follow-up: When you returned to shore, how would you see about the elimination of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

“Why, then, does everyone fret about the burden of the uninsured, but not that of the overinsured?

It’s hilarious, until you realize that the entire Republican frame of the healthcare debate now is that people have too much health insurance and that the cost isn’t passed directly onto consumers, like it is when you buy gas, or a Nintendo.

All the “solutions” (used loosely) proposed by Republican candidates are to increase deductibles, require people to pay for things up front and reduce required coverage levels.

Sure, there would be some people that over-use completely comprehensive care that’s provided at a nominal out-of-pocket charge. But there’s no evidence of that being anywhere near the kind of problem that people face when they go without healthcare, or choose to avoid preventative checkups because they can’t afford out of pocket costs. The only instance I can think of is that Japanese people overuse prescription medication because it’s cheaper to over-prescribe than it is to see a doctor again. That’s not a hard fix.

Again, much like the Laffer curve, Republicans posit an extreme situation that might be possible “healthcare can be so free and accessible that people will over use it” and then wrongly assume we’re already at that point.

A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path is a frozen embryo, which will definitely be destroyed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it run over five illegal immigrants. Should you flip the switch immediately, or wait and see if you get a chance to push Michael Moore onto the tracks first?

The GOP has been accused of not caring about African American voters when many republican candidates chose to not participate in the Tavis Smiley debate. Being one of the absentees, Senator McCain, how does your black baby feel about this?

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said “Stop! don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
He said, “Like what?”
I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?”
He said, “Religious.”
I said, “Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?”
He said, “Christian.”
I said, “Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?”
He said, “Baptist!”
I said,”Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?”
He said, “Baptist church of god!”
I said, “Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?”
He said,”Reformed Baptist church of god!”
I said, “Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?”
He said, “Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!”

If a law, such as those proposed by Democrats, that mandates that all people have health insurance is properly labeled “socialized medicine,” does that mean that existing laws that mandate that all home owners have home owner’s insurance and all drivers have car insurance is also “socialism”? Would you get rid of such laws?

If government-funded health care is “socialized medicine,” does that mean we have a “socialized” educational system in this country? Would you do away with public schools?

No, no. That’s not the right question. It should be “Would you allow yourself to be sodomized by a man to stop a terrorist attack?” Make is clear that they can’t be the top in this encounter, only the bottom.

[…] From Balloon Juice: 1.) “Would you have sex with a man to stop a terrorist attack?” 2.) “If lowering taxes results in increased revenues then would lowering taxes to zero result in infinite revenues?” 3.) “If you had a time machine, would you travel back in time and abort Bin Laden?” 4.) “Would you torture and kill Jesus to ensure mankind’s salvation? And how does that work?” 6.) For Rudy specifically: “How many alimony checks does the sanctity of marriage cost?” […]

[…] For those not part of the base (in Arabic, al-Qaeda) all this might make you a bit uncomfortable, but that’s not the point at the moment. Your comfort doesn’t matter at the moment – you probably vote in the “other” primary. But even some in the base, or who used to be in the base, are getting spooked. See John Cole, former Bush supporter, former war-supporter and life-long Republican. He has some questions for the Republican candidates – […]

Would you have traveled back in time and alllowed hitler to keep all of europe and had him negotaiat a deal with churchill to allow a invasion of england.would to travel back in time to encourage the pilgrims to have a vagan thanksgiving

Which of you will show leadership by refusing the health care that tax payers provide you?

How guilty do you feel by accepting said tax payer funded, socialized, Hillary health care for you and your family knowing many tax payers cannot afford their own health care?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which of you candidates if President, would strip tax payer funded socialized health care to all Government Congressmen, Senators, White House Adm officials, Supreme Court Justices and all their families ?

After the Rapture, won’t the liberals take over, win all the elections, and muck the place up for 1,000 years? What’s your plan for helping to clean up afterwards?

Follow up Rapture questions. Experts claim that during the Rapture the righteous will be wisked bodily to Heaven, naked. Are you concerned that malicious liberals will video the nude, flabby bodies of the righteous, as they soar Heavenward, sans clothing, including close up shots of their comical facial expressions and shriveled (and equally comical) private parts, and sell the videos on the Internets? And what if any laws would you enact to forbid the online hawking of such videos? And even if it were possible to make liberals promise not to video the Rapture, how would you prevent the pointing and laughing that would inevitably take place when the nude heavenward traveling bodies of the righteous accidently collided and rubbed together in regretable ways that would be of course totally innocent but nonetheless sexually suggestive to dirty minded liberals?

Heh! I like #3. Stephen Fry (Who played Jeeves in the series Wooster & Jeeves) wrote a novel about “What would happen if someone went back in time and aborted Hitler?” Fry’s answer was that history would have happened in more or less the same way and has a smarter and more devious character take Hitler’s place. The point being that history is more complex than the history of discrete individuals.
So, if we went back in time and aborted bin Laden, we might end up with more or less the same history.
Of course, as far as Republicans are concerned, the question sets up an immovable object vs an irresistible force. “Do I prevent 9-11 or do I preserve ‘life’ at all costs?”

The current administration has repeatedly warned us that terrorists are funding themselves through the illicit drug trade. Why aren’t patriotic entrepreneurial Americans building enough grow ops and meth labs to ensure we have a secure domestic supply?

With the tide of corporations becoming multi national corps. and some open up status in the Caymen Islands to avoid taxes.

Should the U.S. tax payer continue to have his tax dollars spent in defending these multi national corps business interests via the U.S. Government?

Should our U.S. foreign relations etc drop any discussion issues that directly relates to corporations business rights or business protections (such as logos). Does this Government protection of business foriegn interests hamper the “free market” ?

[…] I was struck while watching various political shows how there seems to be a preponderance of “gotcha” questions. The recent question to both Hillary and Obama about Driver’s licenses for illegal aliens is a good example. The question is designed to have the candidates rank priorities, which is a good way to see how they react and think. The down side is that no matter what answer the candidate gives, there’s a “gotcha”. Do you support safety on the highways or do you want to crack down on illegals? Well, John Cole’s Balloon Juice blog had an excellent set of questions for the Republicans in a recent column. They included, “Would you have sex with a man to stop a terrorist attack?” and “If you had a time machine, would you travel back in time and abort Bin Laden?”. Now *THAT’S* a debate I’d pay to see. […]

[…] I was struck while watching various political shows how there seems to be a preponderance of “gotcha” questions. The recent question to both Hillary and Obama about Driver’s licenses for illegal aliens is a good example. The question is designed to have the candidates rank priorities, which is a good way to see how they react and think. The down side is that no matter what answer the candidate gives, there’s a “gotcha”. Do you support safety on the highways or do you want to crack down on illegals? Well, John Cole’s Balloon Juice blog had an excellent set of questions for the Republicans in a recent column. They included, “Would you have sex with a man to stop a terrorist attack?” and “If you had a time machine, would you travel back in time and abort Bin Laden?”. Now *THAT’S* a debate I’d pay to see. […]

[…] For those not part of the base (in Arabic, al-Qaeda) all this might make you a bit uncomfortable, but that’s not the point at the moment. Your comfort doesn’t matter at the moment – you probably vote in the “other” primary. But even some in the base, or who used to be in the base, are getting spooked. See John Cole, former Bush supporter, former war-supporter and life-long Republican. He has some questions for the Republican candidates – […]

[…] From Balloon Juice: 1.) “Would you have sex with a man to stop a terrorist attack?” 2.) “If lowering taxes results in increased revenues then would lowering taxes to zero result in infinite revenues?” 3.) “If you had a time machine, would you travel back in time and abort Bin Laden?” 4.) “Would you torture and kill Jesus to ensure mankind’s salvation? And how does that work?” 6.) For Rudy specifically: “How many alimony checks does the sanctity of marriage cost?” […]